|
 |
>On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 11:21:47 GMT, ken### [at] uniplan it (Angelo 'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:
>> Mhmm... I think that the raytracer should support those surfaces
>> directly as it's hard for a modeller to do accurate tessellation.
>It could be hard. IMO modellers differ in implementation of patched surfaces,
>nurbs, splines etc.
It could be hard. Many things are hard to do. Shader support is hard
to do. So we can discuss about how to do this instead of if this
should be done... If we agree that it's an interesting feature to add
we can discuss how to do it, if it's doable and other nice things. For
example you're right, they can differ... But since there is a well
accepted standard, we could do them just like renderman does and leave
the trouble to export plugin writers (as there are exporters to
renderman for almost every 3d package, exporting to renderman
style-nurbs is surely possible, so you don't have to care about that)
>> I know if I have only one big nurbs model and an infinite plane, i can
>> use max tessellation and go with this... But if I have a complete,
>> complex scene, with many nurbs characters and a complex background, I
>> don't want to alter manually the tessellation parameters for every
>> object if it's far away or near the camera...
>With POV you are doing everything manually :-)
That's why it takes so much time to set up a scene that it is not used
with commercial modellers while it has all the required rendering
quality to be used... Povray is one of the best raytracers quality
wise, why it should be used only by script-wizards and not by nurbs
modellers too? Why they should always use something else?
>ABX
>--
>#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
>union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
>function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
>contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
